We already killed the diamond industry, apparently

It’s called the nuclear family because of how atomized we are :kelly:

I frankly don’t know how the average atomized American family copes with raising children.

Apparently they are coping very poorly, as per recent surveys:

“After breaking out responses from people with children under age 18, the APA reported that 48 percent of those parents and caregivers describe themselves as completely overwhelmed.”

“The parent-specific breakdown also found that 41 percent said most days they “were so stressed they couldn’t function” — double the number reported by non-parents — while 42 per cent said they were so stressed they felt numb.”

Humanity is going to survive, perhaps in small isolated pockets that never reach the potential capitalism squandered.

The neoliberal propaganda known as “Kurzgesagt” said that if 99% of humanity is wiped out, that’s still a “win” for Team Humanity™. The propaganda declined to state what the planetary conditions would look like for that 1% but assumed everything would be fine after that.

teahc your children to find water by smell like an antelope

Some of you are alright don’t come to earth tomorrow

dion’t buy any green bananas

The end of human civilization may be occurring within our lifetime. So children born today may be fighting in wars over water or killed in nuclear attacks twenty years from now. They may not be able to survive these events. Meaning, they won’t have children of their own.

If the damage is severe enough, the human population might bottleneck to where we won’t have enough genetic diversity to repopulate the earth. Sort of like how cheetahs are going extinct because they’re all born with the same genetic disorder and there aren’t any cheetahs without it.

“skin to skin” hospital bill

Wtf, what is the hospital doing here?

That’s what I’d probably do

-1000 credit score checkmate tankie

That doesn’t explain the general trend because they’ve always been a relatively low proportion of births.

Coupled with sex education, there would be less chances of occuring teenage pregnancy.

I feel like all life advice in “the middle class” is like… Don’t have kids until you have an established career, mortgage, and can afford a babysitter/daycare.

That’s not to say the modern situation is entirely caused by that. One thing I thought of is if you’re a peasant, kids might not actually be that helpful in the field but you can keep an eye on your kids fucking about while you plow fields or whatever. Once urbanisation and bosses happen, you can’t just bring your kid into the office while you make sales calls (unless your child is also losing fingers in the textile factory). Modern farms are also different to older farms; you don’t really want your kids to be around heavy machinery too much, though farmers kids I know spent a decent amount of time hanging out with their parents in the combine harvester etc (unlike literally every urban worker I know).

The survey answer of global hopelessness feels a bit post-hoc to me. I know its a popular narrative, but many doomed societies that have felt doomed have had very high birthrates.

Individualism is also another one.

Agreed. I’ve been a teacher before and I don’t hate kids. So I think the problem is that “I hate kids” is more of a lie we tell ourselves because we cannot in good conscience have kids.

There’s also the fact that the onus is always on women, so we know this is a proxy for something else. If more kids was that much of a priority the bourgeoisie would make some concessions in order to get it. They’d allow more building in “prime real estate” walkable cities and introduce the idea of “community” to America. They’d take a hit on their rent prices and let young people move to the walkable cities they yearn for so they can actually meet people, and you know, get laid to have kids.

But no, their idea is that they want to mandate that women reproduce or be tossed in jail, and further hammer in the idea for men that if they don’t get laid by age 30 they’re a hopeless loser.

This survey does an awful job of separating out the motivations.

Financial freedom (43%) was equal to financial inability (43%), and a smaller group (31%) “attribute this to the social and political world their children would inherit.”

I would argue that increasing financial pressures are social and political realities, rather than something separate.

And there’s no mention of an option for “not wanting to bring children into this hell world based on aspects other than social or political realities” - like climate change or ecological destruction.

Regardless, it does look like there are multiple factors at play here, including a concern for the future that goes beyond personal finance.

The way antinatalists speak, there has to be something more there

They don’t want to change diapers, I think

And it’s declined the most among Black and Native Americans and least among Asian Americans

The conditions of child rearing are so socially and economically different in the impoverished global south versus the imperial core that there’s no way to isolate those variables.

And as I’ve said elsewhere, the headline isn’t conjecture. It’s the answer people gave to a survey. When asked why they aren’t having kids, young Americans say finances are the primary reason.